I also agree Albert. I think the Mechanic/Facilitator/Sponsor model is a useful one in understanding how the assassination came about. But the Sponsors appear to be some formless, all powerful entity that cannot be named, because by definition they must be anonymous. Sounds like Catch 22 to me. Or Alice in Wonderland. I think they are quite identifiable. Start with the folks who created the Federal Reserve and became it's principle shareholders. They controlled the printing of money and interest rates and thereby the US and later world economies. They backed the attempted Smedley Butler coup. They are Globalists and One Worlders, they back such organizations as the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, the Council for Foreign Policy etc. Ask yourself who folks like Dick Chaney, Zbigniew Brezinski, Henry Kissinger, and Allen Dulles, work for, and I think you can come up with a few names.

My position on Armstrong is mixed, but this is not a thread on his theory, so I won't hijack it. However, I will say that I think the weakest part is precisely what you point to; I never found the photographic taxonomy offered by White/Armstrong to be compelling.

My position on Armstrong is mixed, but this is not a thread on his theory, so I won't hijack it. However, I will say that I think the weakest part is precisely what you point to; I never found the photographic taxonomy offered by White/Armstrong to be compelling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_elf#Description_by_McKennaMcKenna's first published mention of the machine elves in his and his brother Dennis' book The Invisible Landscape (published 1975):We especially refer to the apparently autonomous and intelligent, chaotically mercurial and mischievous machine elves encountered in the trance state, strange teachers whose marvelous singing makes intricate toys out of the air and out of their own continually transforming body geometries.[3]

(...and in the "flail fruitlessly" category, the winner is.......)

"Second Chance"......and I've been in a tranceThis heart needs a second chanceDon't say it's over I just can't say goodbyePlease forgive me and forget itI was wrong and I admit itWhy can't we talk it overWhy can't we forget about, forget about the past- 38 Special

Now you've got a new trial that is coming up that you wanted to talk about that is started as well. Can you tell us something about that? Well it's its; uh it's in the early stages yet and its uh a work of a man who uh by the name of Peter Janney who had published a book called Mary's Mosaic. Peter worked for about 35 years on that case. Mary in it is Mary Meyer. Now the fascinating thing about this case, it's uh it's a 50 year old case, she was assassinated in 1964 in Washington, DC. She was the only woman Jack Kennedy ever loved and was very, very close to him and it's quite clear he was going to marry her and people close to them knew that and said that, after the second term. Mary had been married to a very prominent Washington person, had been married to Cord Meyer who was a deputy director of the CIA and she just had so much of their operations that she couldn't take it anymore and she divorced him. Um and then she became close to Jack Kennedy and they really had a mission for peace. She was uh turning him into a real fighter, a warrior if you will for peace and John Kennedy as you know delivered a famous speech at American University and began to turn directly on that issue She went beyond that, I mean she got Tim Leary ujp at Harvard to uh give her acid and she took the president, believe it or not, on his only (laughing) acid trip to try to open him up and I think she was very succcessful and very much in love....

at about the 3:30 mark on the mp3:

....And Peter Janney has identified a key person who was involved in that conspiracy...he apparantly was an intelligence agent, he was there, he was on the scene...uh...and he was used and we're looking at a way and it's not easy as you can imagine uhh uhh after 50 years, we're looking at a way to try to bring this into a court room where all of the evidence that Peter has unccovered can be put before umm a judge and jury. And I took this on, I've watched Peter work for a number of years and I stayed in the background, finally I agreed to do it, to come on as his counsel because I came to see that this is maybe the most important case in the assassinations because it links, it links to the assassination of Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy because she was of course involved in discussions witth the two of them in terms of all kinds of matters, she had been to the white house 40 times in October, in the October before the president was killed in November. She was a very powerful, behind the scenes influence to combat the cold war and to bring America away from the cold war into a peaceful perspective, and of course that was one of the things that was held against John Kennedy and he was looking to normalize relations with Cuba and he had entered into serious discussions with Kruschev.....

....The complaint, “Dr Peter Janney vs. William Lockwood Mitchell (aka Bill Mitchell)” alleges that the conspiracy to murder Mary Meyer was devised to prevent her from publicly disclosing certain details she had uncovered involving President Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas. The suit claims that “Lt. William L. Mitchell,” an Army lieutenant working at the Pentagon in the fall of 1964, and who was allegedly an undercover CIA operative, helped to facilitate the Meyer murder. Dr. Janney, author of Mary’s Mosaic, a detailed 35 year long investigation into the circumstances surrounding her life and death, was a childhood friend of the Meyer family. It has only been within the last year, after he finally located and confronted Defendant Mitchell in August 2012, that he now believes he has finally amassed enough evidence to formally seek justice in the D.C. Superior Court.

http://www.marysmosaic.net/files/Part_II_Cherl.mp3June 25, 2013: 9/11 Wake-Up Call (airing on 88.1FM WESU – Wesleyan University Radio) (8.6MB) Part II: Host Cheryl Curtis of 9/11 Wake Up Call continues her interview of Peter Janney and his book Mary's Mosaic and the historical impact of the 1964 murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer and the JFK assassination.

"Yes, there is a shadow government, the is a very kind of secretive cabal that is running things. I don't think the office of the presidency.... or really means that much, he is just kind of a figurehead. I think it was very clear when Obama got elected people were going, oh boy, we got rid of George Bush, now we're going to really be able to turn things around, and he's been a huge disappointment. I think Obama really took a cold shower when he got to the White House and realized there was going to be very little he could change because the policies that were put into place allegedly by his administration were already there to begin with and I mean in some ways the Obama presidency is even significantly more repressive than George Bush's was. It is flabbergasting to realize that but that's what's going on. And then what took place in terms of the financial meltdown in 2008, I think it should be a huge eye opener for people because the cabal that's ruling the world so to speak, revolves around money and the manipulation of wealth and they are in collusion with any number of governments to maintain their own power and to maintain certain stablilties....There is a very small, what do you want to call them, the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group, you know, something like that, the Rockefellers, these people exist and they have enormous, enormous control over what takes place in the world..."(end at 7:46 time mark on the mp3).

Five Rockefellers and Rockefeller Family Honored for Service‎New York Times - Nov 29, 1967The New York Times Frank Pace Jr., left, president of National Institute ofSocial Sciences, with the five Rockefeller brothers who were honored at the ...

Peter Janney's uncle, former Chairman of General Dynamics, Frank Pace, pictured in the only photo I have ever seen of all five Rockefeller Brothers while Frank Pace was employed by David Rockefeller. I have not come across any mention by Peter Janney of his uncle Frank Pace.

...The offer came from Frank Pace, then Secretary of the Army, former Budget Bureau Director, and later the young president of General Dynamics. He had never heard of me, but he was married to Wistar Janney's sister, and one night at the Janneys' he mentioned he was

Evidence Implies Order Expected by Dynamics‎Hartford Courant - Nov 21, 1963WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate probers produced evidence Wednesday that a top executive of the General Dynamics Corp., claimed "reasonably strong indications" far in advance that the firm would win the huge, disputed TFX warplane... tract. Frank Pace, who has since resigned, was named as the . Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, testifying before the Senate Investigations subcommittee, swor he had no idea where Pace could have received such information.Former Legal AdviserGilpatric is a former legal adviser to General Dynamics whose role in the TFX contract negotiations is under senatorial fire. He described Pacej as his close friend. Earlier in the day. Chairman John L. McClellan. D-Ark., told Gilpatric that he should have disqualified himself from having anything to do with the contract award, to avoid any possible allegations of conflict of in-i terest. I The subcommittee is investi-. gation whether favoritism' steered the contract to General Dynamics last December. Gilpatric and others in the Defense Department's civilian command overruled military I evaluations that a rival design and bid by the Boeing Co. of Seattle promised a better, cheaper version. Costly ProjectThe Pentagon estimates the TFX project will cost between $5 billion and $7.5 billion. This would make it the largest in Pentagon history .I The subcommittee produced a! document dated "July 1961" in! which Pace, top official of Gen-; eral Dynamics' Fort Worth, \ Tex., division, told its top management: "There are reasonably strong indications that Fort Worth's proposed -: ration offers the only approach] that can satisfy both Air Force and Navy requirements" for (or the TFX. ! McClellan said this was "a, month and seven days" before the Pentagon had even complet-1 ed a statement of design re-! " Where," he demanded, "was the source of these reasonably strong indications?

New York Times - Nov 19, 1963...The session brought out that ,Mr. Gilpatric was influential in j Continued on Page 17, Column 3 GILPATRIC S ROLE ON TFX QUERIED Continued From Page 1, Col. 2 bringing the General Dynamics account to his law firm, that Maurice Moore, senior partner of the firm, was named to the General Dynamics board of directors one month after the TFX contract was awarded to the company. -Gilpatric's former law firm was named counsel for General Dynamics at the same time. -Gilpatric acknowledged that he spent about onefourth of his time as a lawyer during 2i4 years in the late 1950's handling General Dynamics matters, and GD paid his firm $111000 in legal fees during this same period....."

https://www.google.c...urce=newspapersLuce Aides: 'No Drastic Changes'; 3 He Picked to Run Empire...‎New York Times - Mar 6, 1967Luce last Monday, the day before he died in Phoenix, Ariz. ... Paul G. Hoffman, Samuel Meek, Maurice T. Moore and Frank Pace Jr. ' Mr. Luce, who was also on .....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259The Future of the JFK ForumStarted by John Simkin, Jun 09 2013 ......I even allowed Jim to join the Forum in June 2010 so he could continue his attacks on me. I am not complaining. I think these attacks say more about Jim than me. However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.

(.....So this is love, Standing in the pouring rain -38 Special Second Chance)http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&page=9#entry275587Robert Charles-Dunne Posted 16 June 2013 .......... The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

.....Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum.

It is a decision I will not revoke. I have received several emails from members who have thanked me for making this decision, admitting that in the past they have been intimidated from posting. As I explained earlier, this is my last effort at attempting to promote the idea of a reasoned debate on the JFK assassination.

I feel my life slipping away, I look to the skyAnd everything is turnin' grey, All I made was one mistakeHow much more will I have to pay, Why can't you think it overWhy can't you forget about the past..........Yeahhhhhh you've been gone and I've been in a tranceThis heart needs a second chance, Don't say it's over I just can't say goodbyePlease forgive me and forget it I was wrong and I admit itWhy can't we talk it over Why can't we forget about, forget about the past

Peter Janney did a radio interview with Jim Fetzer last November.:http://radiofetzer.blogspot.fr/2012/11/peter-janney-ralph-cinque.html#comment-formWednesday, November 21, 2012Peter Janney / Ralph CinqueMary Meyer's Assassin / Oswald in DoorwayPosted by Total at 11:55 PM

At the 3:35 minute mark in the mp3 pod cast, Peter Janney exclaimed:

"This has all happened since my book (Mary's Mosaic) was published last April, and of course the irony is one of my major critics, Tom Scully in an effort to discredit me and my book uh...and me in particular as a terrible researcher....uh had found some citations of the person I allege in my book as Mary Meyer's assassin. His name was William L. Mitchell. and it turns out that Scully... (Jim Fetzer breaks in with, "the William L Mitchell that you cited turns out to be a professor on a campus of the University of California....")."

Very good John, It's going to be hard to keep up getting the best new writers on board, but you can do it. Many thanks.

BK

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19777&p=272667.........Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the endof March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had beenmurdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....

How can you be so cynical Jim -- it's a frickin love story for godssakes. And that day will come when Mary Meyer will take her rightful place on Mt. Rushmore, as she was involved in discussions with John & Robert Kennedy "in terms of all kinds of matters," visiting the White House 40 times in October 1963; taking Prez on an acid trip; them smoking one joint after another (because, as everyone knows, smoking marihuana is like drinking martinis -- the more you smoke, the higher you get). Bully for Janney! and bully for Dr. Pepper!

Now you've got a new trial that is coming up that you wanted to talk about that is started as well. Can you tell us something about that? Well it's its; uh it's in the early stages yet and its uh a work of a man who uh by the name of Peter Janney who had published a book called Mary's Mosaic. Peter worked for about 35 years on that case. Mary in it is Mary Meyer.... She was the only woman Jack Kennedy ever loved and was very, very close to him and it's quite clear he was going to marry her and people close to them knew that and said that, after the second term.... Um and then she became close to Jack Kennedy and they really had a mission for peace. She was uh turning him into a real fighter, a warrior if you will for peace....

....And Peter Janney has identified a key person who was involved in that conspiracy...he apparantly was an intelligence agent, he was there, he was on the scene...uh...and he was used and we're looking at a way and it's not easy as you can imagine uhh uhh after 50 years, we're looking at a way to try to bring this into a court room where all of the evidence that Peter has unccovered can be put before umm a judge and jury. And I took this on, I've watched Peter work for a number of years and I stayed in the background, finally I agreed to do it, to come on as his counsel because I came to see that this is maybe the most important case in the assassinations because it links, it links to the assassination of Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy because she was of course involved in discussions witth the two of them in terms of all kinds of matters, she had been to the white house 40 times in October, in the October before the president was killed in November. She was a very powerful, behind the scenes influence to combat the cold war and to bring America away from the cold war into a peaceful perspective....

But I was under the impression that it was Tom Scully who uncovered the identity of Mitchell, not Janney's crack team of Pulitzer-nominated crack researchers?

My options are laid out here? I don't even know who the hell Tom is? or what his agenda is... he seems to have a hard on for Peter and I have no interest in attacking a serious researcher...

Jim: I don't need you to set yourself up as some sort of fixer here; what Peter reported in his book about our conversatiopn is accurate; as to the rest of his book I don't know because as I said yesterday

I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far. I expect that will come out soon. If Tom has info he should it out in the proper places. [Few read this forum.]

You didn't reply on my comments on what you know and don't know about my sources, Jim. Peter did not violate my trust. I spoke to him freely and told him all that I knew, with a few exceptions regarding names and places of residence. He can verify this

.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259#entry275190John Simkin Posted 09 June 2013 ..........However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.....

......I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar....

Protect and promote the ....s (dare I even describe them accurately?)

Any Education forum moderator (with scruples???????) can verify that the three posts on the Education Forum represented to be posted by Nina Burleigh are stamped with the IP # John Simkin was posting from at that time.:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4641&page=1entry36373

A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination

Started by John Simkin, 26 Sep 2013 John Simkin Posted 26 September 2013Hank Albarelli has agreed to discuss his book, A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination, on the Forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18326http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/jfk-mistress-murder-solvedMary Pinchot Meyer Case said to be solved...Published on: November 6, 2011by NATIONAL ENQUIRER staff

Massachusetts author Peter Janney claims to have solved the mystery behind the murder of the 43-year-old socialite, who carried on a two-year affair with President John F. Kennedy while he was in office.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18326&page=1entry237509'John Simkin', on 07 Nov 2011 ......One of the important aspects of this book is that it will show that Nina Burleigh's book on the subject, "A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer" (1998) was a CIA limited hangout.

The JFK Forum is Closing Down

Started by John Simkin, 20 Jun 2013 .....My original vision of JFK researchers coming together to share information in a collaborative and friendly way does not appear to be favoured by enough members to make it work. I have therefore decided to close it down and let members form the kind of Forum that is more to their liking. ....

[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nJMCJyOqOEwC&pg=PT561&lpg=PT561&dq="*He+said+his+position+at+the+Pentagon+in+1964+had+been+just+%E2%80%9Ca+light+bulb&source=bl&ots=6QkR8AHogk&sig=LHXEtmidDsPTMSpLcXbIwnZcxss&hl=en#v=onepage&q="*He said his position at the Pentagon in 1964 had been just %E2%80%9Ca light]Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ... - Google Books Result[/url]

books.google.com/books?isbn=162087282XPeter Janney - 2012 - Biography & Autobiography........The phantom William L. Mitchell had indeed evaporated into thin air.“This is a typical pattern of people involved in covert intelligence work,” Charles later reported to me.“I've come across this kind of thing many times. People like this don't want to be found. They're taught how to evade all the conventional bureaucracies and channels. They don't leave any traces. These people work undercover in places like the Pentagon all the time.Given what I see here—the fact that he's got no matching military record I can locate—it's almost a certainty this guy Mitchell, whoever he was or is, had some kind of covert intelligence connection It's very strong in my opinion.” 15

Sometimes serendipity entwines with providence. In December 2009, I read H. P. Albarelli's recently published book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments. Albarelli's magnum opus took me by the hand and held me hostage for several days. Extensively researched, the book not only provided the most convincing account of how theCIA “terminated” one of its own, but possibly the best history ever writtenof the Agency's infamous MKULTRA program. Albarelli and I soon began talking, and he inquired about my progress. I mumbled something about the trail having ended at “1500 Arlington Boulevard” in Arlington, Virginia. After a moment of silence, Albarelli told me he had lived at that same address when he was a student at George Washington University many years ago. I then mentioned my phantom—William L. Mitchell—and some of the dead-end information I had amassed. "William Mitchell ?” Albarelli repeated. He said he would get back to me later; he thought he had come across the name before. Indeed, he had. An important Albarelli source—someone whom the author had known for many years and whose information had been corroborated by other sources—had revealed in September 2001 something more about the identity of William Mitchell. The source, whose name Albarelli did not want to reveal, specifically....

....When Albarelli called back later that day, he reported he did finally reach the source, but he wasn't amenable to talking about Mitchell, or even acknowledging whether Mitchell was still alive. Did Mitchell have kids?

Albarelli asked. “Yeah, he had a few kids but I never met them or his wife,” the source replied. (The reader will come to know why this question was important.)

Bluntly, Albarelli then asked whether he remembered telling him in 2001 thatMitchell had killed Mary Meyer. “Heard he killed a lot of people,” repliedthe now tightlipped source. “What difference does it make now?” 18 ....

At the 37:00 mark, he (Peter Janney) is talking about Crump trial witness, William L. Mitchell.

Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the endof March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had beenmurdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....

The study presents an investiga-tion of the Army officer structure, and was published in March, 1969.The overallclassification of the study is SECRET, but only UNCLASSIFIEDportions are used in this paper. The purpose of this study was to establish a sustainable officer structure forthe Army through 1975-1985.......DISTRIBUTION LIST............Dr. Bill Mitchell1Department of Management SciencesCalifornia State CollegeHayward, California 94542.....

https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

Our critics? We regret there is no more to do to them than to make them disappear.:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:How can you be so cynical Jim -- it's a frickin love story for godssakes. And that day will come when Mary Meyer will take her rightful place on Mt. Rushmore, as she was involved in discussions with John & Robert Kennedy "in terms of all kinds of matters," visiting the White House 40 times in October 1963; taking Prez on an acid trip; them smoking one joint after another (because, as everyone knows, smoking marihuana is like drinking martinis -- the more you smoke, the higher you get). Bully for Janney! and bully for Dr. Pepper!

...............................................

But I was under the impression that it was Tom Scully who uncovered the identity of Mitchell, not Janney's crack team of Pulitzer-nominated crack researchers?

I thank God that these three guys are all on the same side!: (From what I can make of their "rules" any accusation made against DiEugenio, Mitchell, or Scully is fine, but against Albarelli, Janney, or Simkin, not so much.) I am most partial to the opinion of Mr. Charles, and he does seem the most coherent, to a degree at least.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259#entry275190John Simkin Posted 09 June 2013 ..........However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.....

......I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar....

Tom -- many thx for getting back to me. I wasn't sure how you'd receive my query, but am glad to see you took it as it was intended -- an attempt to understand how you succeeded in identifying which "William L. Mitchell," out of hundreds, was the one who testified at the 1965 trial.

.......I do believe someone called Damore. The contemporaneous notes of his attorney are just very compelling.

Will we ever know who made this call? Unlikely, IMHO. And, it may well prove much less important an issue than it did before you identified William Lockwood Mitchell as the William L. Mitchell in the Crump case.

Let me at this point express my deep appreciation for your important contribution. It will, I hope, lead to answering crucial questions about MPM's murder. (Although I have not asked directly, I think I can say with some confidence state Peter Janney shares this appreciation.).....

John Simkin wrote:I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar.

I have scanned the relevant posts, John, and I cannot find where Tom calls Albarelli "a liar".

Can anyone else?

Are we to be told exactly when and how Tom and Jim broke forums rules in such a manner that earned them expulsion from the forum without fair warning?

Are we entitled to any explanation or under the "new regime" are we supposed to just knuckle under?

In my original posting on this matter I gave a link to:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016

The quote I had in mind was the following .........

"Second Chance"......and I've been in a tranceThis heart needs a second chanceDon't say it's over I just can't say goodbyePlease forgive me and forget itI was wrong and I admit itWhy can't we talk it overWhy can't we forget about, forget about the past- 38 Special

Tom, I was going to say that while I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Simkin Pasha, I think the explanation for the IP # issue may be relatively harmless: he's been known to cross-post responses (from important people like Authors) across several threads involving the same/similar topics, and in this case may well have been relaying Burleigh's responses from an email (to him). I suppose handling things that way helps keep Important People from being dirtied by contact with commoners.

But that might also mean he created the profile for Burleigh and then posted her responses using the profile he created for her, which would be misrepresentation (to the viewing audience). I don't think he's above that, but then I'm not sure if you're also suggesting he did that, and also later came up with the idea that her book is a "CIA limited hangout"? That's a damned interesting idea, but I'm not so sure he's that "counterintelligence savvy."

On another note, Albarelli denied writing/complaining to Simkin that you had called Albarelli a liar? So Simkin made all that up on his own? Now that's more like it -- that's the Full Johnny; none of this nonsense of taking on the internet identity of an Authoress in order to later proclaim that "her" work is a CIA limited hangout.

name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1346666992' post='259226']John, is it unreasonable to assume that Peter Janney's most recent post on this thread, and your most recent two, are the best responses either of you could muster? In hindsight, five years ago, diEugenio's criticism could have been received as constructive. It is not DiEugenio who has turned my opinion of you in a different direction, you, Mr. Janney, and my own googling are primarily responsible for that.

Maybe you should tell the rest of the Forum what your "Googling" has found out about me.

'John Simkin', on 12 Oct 2007 - 03:00 AM, said:Part III.....................................DiEugenio chooses to believe Nina Burleigh's account of the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer. In 1998 Burleigh published "A Very Private Woman" about the Meyer murder. In August, 2005, Burleigh agreed to discuss her book on the forum.

http://educationforu...?showtopic=4641

It included the following exchange:

John Simkin: Do you believe Timothy Leary's account of his relationship with Mary Meyer?

Nina Burleigh: Up to a point, yes. I think he knew her and possibly did drugs with her or shared his drugs with her or talked to her about them. LSD was a very trendy drug with the artsy edgy people then. My problem is that he had no corroborating evidence - not a single eyewitness, not a hotel bill, no contemporaneous notes, to back up his claims. Given his lifetime drug use, I felt I needed that to be certain of his memories.

John Simkin: Did you find any evidence that the killing was a CIA operation?

Nina Burleigh: No. I can't say I disproved that theory though. There remains, in my mind, a ten percent chance that someone besides Crump did it.

John Simkin: Did you read Leo Damore's manuscript on Mary Meyer?

Nina Burleigh: An assistant of his shared his papers, and notes with me, I have since learned that he did not share everything however.

John Simkin: What do you make of this passage in C. David Heymann's book, The Georgetown Ladies' Social Club (2003): "Asked to comment on the case, by the current author (C. David Heymann), Cord Meyer held court at the beginning of February 2001 - six weeks before his death - in the barren dining room of a Washington nursing home. Propped up in a chair, his glass eye bulging, he struggled to hold his head aloft. Although he was no longer able to read, the nurses supplied him with a daily copy of The Washington Post, which he carried with him wherever he went. "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed , " he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."

Nina Burleigh: Absolute utter hogwash. Cord Meyer was apparently enraged at my well-researched book, and I cannot believe he would sit down with Heymann, no matter how near death. At the end of his life, Cord had a very disfigured visage from mouth and jaw cancer - you would think Heymann would have mentioned that fact if he had seen him in the flesh.

One needs to ask if Nina Burleigh is a completely objective witness. After all, she worked for Ben Bradlee at the Washington Post. Was this another example of a "limited hangout". And why was Burleigh so selective in the use of information that Peter Janney gave here?

Mel Ayton wrote:As to the Mary Meyer murder :here's an excerpt from my book "Questions Of Controversy" (2001)

Did you actually get this book published? How did they let this thing through? Was it a vanity publisher?

Mel Ayton, on Jul 15 2005, 09:35 AM, said:

Mel Ayton wrote:In 1964, a year after the President’s assassination, she was murdered as she walked along a tow-path next to the Potomac river. Meyer’s killer, according to police reports, grabbed her from behind and in broad daylight shot the 42 year old just once under the cheekbone. Her killer escaped and Meyer died instantly.

Mary was actually shot twice. The evidence suggested she had been killed by a professional hitman. .........

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3602&p=33443 Mel Ayton Posted 15 July 2005 - 02:16 PM My book was published by a University Press, not a Vanity Press.(I thought you were the mature member who advised his forum members to avoid insults, sneers etc?) ..............

'John Simkin', on 15 Jul 2005 - 12:53 PM, said:

name='Mel Ayton' date='Jul 15 2005, 01:16 PM'] If you limit your reading to books which continually take the conspiracy angle you will miss out.Please read Nina Burleigh, inform your readers about her conclusions in order to to give a balanced view, then carry on speculating.

I have of course read Nina Burleigh's book. She has carried out some interesting research although I do not always agree with her conclusions. To be fair, she has an open-mind about Mary's killer. However, I am much more impressed with one of her major sources, Peter Janney. He is a member of the Forum. This is what he had to say on the Mary Pinchot Meyer thread: .........................

Pat Speer, on Oct 27 2005, 08:34 AM, said:John, I agree that you have done a great job in getting these writers to visit the Forum. I also agree with Tim's point that we haven't exactly made this place a comfortable place for non-conspiratists to express themselves. You, in particular, seem to be getting increasingly irritated by American intellectual slackness............

This is a serious charge and one that must be answered. First of all, I agree that I was too hard on Mel Ayton concerning Mary Pinchot Meyer. I allowed my lack of respect for his research to show. That was wrong of me and was probably the reason why he stopped posting on the JFK assassination thread. However, he still contributes to the Martin Luther King section (I have restrained myself from posting comments about his “research” of this case).

Tim is of course the other person who I have been highly critical of over the last few months. .....The problem is that I don’t respect Tim’s intellect. Some time ago he committed intellectual suicide and can now only repeat the comments of his mentors. As other members have found, when he has been intellectually challenged, he runs away.

Nor do I take him seriously as a researcher......

......It seems to me Pat that you have succumbed to Tim’s flattery. He used to try to do that to me. He is desperate to find other members of the Forum to agree with him. Over the years a couple of members have defended him but they don’t stay long as they realize that it is intellectually embarrassing to be linked to Tim.

It might interest you to know that I actually find you abrasive in your comments about some of my postings. However, I have not allowed it to upset me. After all, it is all about perceptions.

Dan, there is no way to determine why John Simkin singled out Nina Burleigh to be represented as having joined "his forum" and posted three posts in threads on the forum, but actually did not. After I stumbled upon this I used the moderator search tool to satisfy myself that there were no other examples of this happening. Before and after Nina Burleigh's posting "activity", John Simkin confined himself to posting only the first post, the bio post of every new member. We are left to wonder why it happened. A disclaimer posted in July, 2005 would have been appreciated.

Judging by the examples I posted above, this was a long time coming and not surprising considering the overall attitude, lack of objectivity, and even the attempts to sell an image of tolerance, fairness, and the right amount of introspection.

My options are laid out here? I don't even know who the hell Tom is? or what his agenda is... he seems to have a hard on for Peter and I have no interest in attacking a serious researcher...

Jim: I don't need you to set yourself up as some sort of fixer here; what Peter reported in his book about our conversatiopn is accurate; as to the rest of his book I don't know because as I said yesterday

I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far. I expect that will come out soon. If Tom has info he should it out in the proper places. [Few read this forum.]

You didn't reply on my comments on what you know and don't know about my sources, Jim. Peter did not violate my trust. I spoke to him freely and told him all that I knew, with a few exceptions regarding names and places of residence. He can verify this

John Simkin wrote:I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar.

I have scanned the relevant posts, John, and I cannot find where Tom calls Albarelli "a liar".....Are we entitled to any explanation or under the "new regime" are we supposed to just knuckle under?

Tom Scully, on 27 May 2013 - 7:24 PM, said:

"Last year, when Peter Janney was prone to mistakes, exaggeration, and pomposity , I did not expect Hank Albarelli to speak out to distance himself from Janney and to account for the statements Janney attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic".

Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable."

Remember, these are the words of a moderator, whose role is apparently to people from posting abuse of fellow members. I have had numerous complaints from members over the past few months pointing out that Tom continually flouted the rules that he was supposed to be enforcing......

Peter Janney did a radio interview with Jim Fetzer last November.:http://radiofetzer.blogspot.fr/2012/11/peter-janney-ralph-cinque.html#comment-formWednesday, November 21, 2012Peter Janney / Ralph CinqueMary Meyer's Assassin / Oswald in DoorwayPosted by Total at 11:55 PM

"This has all happened since my book (Mary's Mosaic) was published last April, and of course the irony is one of my major critics, Tom Scully in an effort to discredit me and my book uh...and me in particular as a terrible researcher....uh had found some citations of the person I allege in my book as Mary Meyer's assassin. His name was William L. Mitchell. and it turns out that Scully... (Jim Fetzer breaks in with, "the William L Mitchell that you cited turns out to be a professor on a campus of the University of California....")."

Tom -- many thx for getting back to me. I wasn't sure how you'd receive my query, but am glad to see you took it as it was intended -- an attempt to understand how you succeeded in identifying which "William L. Mitchell," out of hundreds, was the one who testified at the 1965 trial.

.......I do believe someone called Damore. The contemporaneous notes of his attorney are just very compelling.

Will we ever know who made this call? Unlikely, IMHO. And, it may well prove much less important an issue than it did before you identified William Lockwood Mitchell as the William L. Mitchell in the Crump case.

Let me at this point express my deep appreciation for your important contribution. It will, I hope, lead to answering crucial questions about MPM's murder. (Although I have not asked directly, I think I can say with some confidence state Peter Janney shares this appreciation.).....

Regards,

Roger Charles

Peter Janney, presenting to a Northhampton, MA audience on 11 April, just 17 days after I received Roger Charles' email, and 4-1/2 months after Janney's Fetzer Radio interview in November.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19777&p=272667.........Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the endof March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had beenmurdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....

Tom Scully wrote:Dan, there is no way to determine why John Simkin singled out Nina Burleigh to be represented as having joined "his forum" and posted three posts in threads on the forum, but actually did not. After I stumbled upon this I used the moderator search tool to satisfy myself that there were no other examples of this happening. Before and after Nina Burleigh's posting "activity", John Simkin confined himself to posting only the first post, the bio post of every new member. We are left to wonder why it happened. A disclaimer posted in July, 2005 would have been appreciated.

Judging by the examples I posted above, this was a long time coming and not surprising considering the overall attitude, lack of objectivity, and even the attempts to sell an image of tolerance, fairness, and the right amount of introspection.

While there may have been no other examples of that specifically happening, I can offer an example of cross-postings being mysteriously disappeared:

Oh right, I forgot, I don't have posts there except for what was quoted in response. (What, am I like frickin' Heraclitus or some other ancient bastards whose writings are only known in fragments where they're quoted by someone else????) Anyhoo, what happened was that I entered into the discussion when Mel Ayton responded to William Turner and I was able to offer a factual correction to Mel's assertion about Don Schulman. Mel then posted an identical response across several threads which was critical of Simkin (had nothing to do with my correction, or for that matter any "shooting down" of John Hunt the Boisterous); I read that same response appearing in the several threads and about an hour later they all were gone. In the ensuing controversy I was able to find one thread where Mel's original response appeared .... I was never sure if it had been there all along or if "someone" had "reappeared" it in response to the controversy. This was, incidentally, the first instance where I found reason to think Simkin could be a bit underhanded in how he dealt with things.

Thank you for taking more time and trouble to clarify and put things into context a bit, Tom.

Tom Scully wrote:I big your pardon, (akaDan), did you not receive the memo, "truth" has been revised..... history is written by the elves...ummm, victors.

.......................

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259#entry275190John Simkin Posted 09 June 2013 ..........However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.....

......I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar....

Protect and promote the ....s (dare I even describe them accurately?)

Any Education forum moderator (with scruples???????) can verify that the three posts on the Education Forum represented to be posted by Nina Burleigh are stamped with the IP # John Simkin was posting from at that time.:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4641&page=1entry36373

Dan, it finally dawns on me that I have not properly described why what I have been saying is simply and completely obvious to any Ed Forum moderator who would check into it. Every moderator and admin sees this view of every post. In the upper right hand corner theIP number (I crossed it out in Cinque's old post to maintain his privacy) is visible to moderators. So any mod or admin can simply click on one of the links I posted in the quote box above and verify that the posts of Simkin and Burleigh visible on the same linked pages display the same, Sussex, UK I.P. number, the I.P. Simkin was using for at least one hundred of his posts around that 19 August, 2005 time frame. This has nothing to do with quoting and reposting. The other I.P. tool permits a moderator to quickly obtain a list of all posts posted from any inputted I.P. number, from the oldest post originating from the inputted I.P. # to the most recent.

Observe the upper right corner (IP ___________ ):

I also posted more than once of the fraud of Lee Israel, detected and confirmed exactly through the methods I described above. No one else was interested. I do not value any details single sourced to the convicted felon forger and fraudster Lee Israel.:

Denis Pointing wrote:After trying to find more info on the "exclusive" and "private" Kilgallen/Ruby interview via the web I was intrigued to find that many, about 20%, of the reports state the interview was far from exclusive and certainly not private and was no more than a few words inside the packed courtroom during a recess, whilst other reporters looked on within hearing range. Hardly the right setting for Ruby to confess anything of any consequence that would "break the case wide open"! Kinda perplexing, until I realised that most, if not all, of the remaining 80% of the reports which claim an exclusive interview between Kilgallen and Ruby share the same common source, an authoress by the name of Lee Israel, indeed the lady is mentioned in several post's in this very thread. More than that, a great deal of the information concerning Kilgallen and her death written here comes directly from Israel's book "Kilgallen". So how reliable a source is Lee Israel? Well, considering she's a self confessed forger, liar, thief, con artist and criminal....I'm thinking not very.http://www.nytimes.c...show_index.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.c...oks/24forg.htmlhttp://www.thetakeaw...literary-crime/

The crimes Lee Israel committed in 1990, 1991 and 1992 have nothing to do with the research she had done on Kilgallen more than twelve years earlier. She finished her Kilgallen work in 1978, more than a year before the book's September 1979 publication. Moreover, almost a dozen people she quoted in the book later did soundbite video interviews that confirm the quotes. They did, in fact, say what Lee Israel said they had said. Do you know anything about what it's like to be a successful New York writer? Lee began her life of crime almost five years after the publication of her book about American cosmetics tycoon Estee Lauder. That book flopped, ruining her access to major publishers.

Not only can you see visuals and hear audio of Lee's sources confirming what's in the book, but you even can access interviews by three people who saw Dorothy Kilgallen during the last six months of her life and they never talked to Lee. So that material is not in the book.

Did you know Dorothy Kilgallen was invisible at the time Lee committed her crimes in the early 1990s? Lee did not have the option of reissuing her book or hooking up with fans of "What's My Line?". She did not have those options because "What's My Line?" was invisible. Reruns on the Game Show Network did not start until December of 1994. That is when the network was launched. Today the network, renamed GSN, still exists, but it discontinued all old black and white game shows just three months ago. You Tube is the place to see and hear Dorothy in 2009. And Lee Israel is once again a law - abiding citizen, doing freelance magazine work and editing.

Maybe Ron Pataky (the friend Dorothy made the year before she died) will confess something. If you Google him, you will notice that he is alive. His date of birth is on Mr. Simkin's "Spartacus" web site. I assume people have read the strange online interview with him about Dorothy. It is on the Midwest Today web site. That magazine investigated the mystery, and editor / publisher Larry Jordan has nothing to do with Lee Israel's life of crime.

No one else thinks this speaks to an agenda and a fraud, considering what the intent is in the post above, and this record? :

'Tom Scully', on 10 Sept 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Tom Scully wrote:Considering I have found that David Yarnell posted in 2005 under I.P. numbers also logged to posts by Lee Israel and by Jonathan Wendland, it seems appropriate to reevaluate / discount everything posted by these three.

The following posts all originated from the same I.P. # :

Israel : http://educationforu...483

Israel : http://educationforu...033

Yarnell: http://educationforu...648

Yarnell: http://educationforu...210

Yarnell: http://educationforu...028

Wendland: http://educationforu...434

Wendland: http://educationforu...092

Wendland: http://educationforu...091

There are more, under other I.P.'s used commonly by two or more of the three "members."....

When you read this entire post by "Jonathan Wendland" with that typical posting pattern by Lee Israel in mind, then it becomes clear that it's in fact Lee Israel posting under that name. Please note the details she is able to give about Kilgallen/Pritchett and the "corrections" of Israel's earlier posts. it's written in the same style and attitude. ....

When I checked the I.P.'s used by members in the threads at the links below, sure enough, these three members posted fromthe same I.P.'s, as follows, and in other instances.:

When I discussed this problem privately with the moderating "team" the only reaction was that I should not have posted I.P. #'s publicly. I pointed out that "members" who post fraudulantly to misinform with the intent to deceive should not a privacy preservation priority and that in any instance where the author of a post posted on the forum is in doubt (because the I.P. # fraud tools are effective in ascertaining when this fraud jhas occurred), the information displayed in such posts is worth less and the member who has posted while misrepresenting authorship cannot be trusted with posting privilege.

Dan, there is much more of your work on the Ed Forum available where this came from, if it helps to know it.....

Let us be clear, are you saying that Simkin forged posts by Nine Burleigh at EF from his computer?

Jim,

On January 18, I sent an email to Pat Speer. This is an excerpt. I had been away from the Ed Forum for five weeks and I was replying to a request Pat was relaying from David Lifton for my contact info.:

.......If I log back in on the Ed Forum, I might not be able to keep myself from asking if Nina Burleigh ever actually posted personally on the Ed Forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4641 (I did not go looking for this, I simply noticed the commonality of the I.P. number associated with posts by "member" Burleigh, wiith other posting activity.....

[font]

Pat Speer did not reply to that email or to the my observation shared with him.

If you click on the Ed Forum link, you can observe from the date of my post on the thread that this was the day I accidentally observed that Simkin's and Burleigh;s posts displayed the same I.P.#. I hope the example of the upper right hand corner of the image I posted of an old Cinque Ed Forum post helps explain what I am saying. After I noticed in August 2012 that the 2005 thread with only three posts in it included two posts displayed as authored by Simkin and Burleigh and a third by Pat Speer, and that the Simkin and Burleigh posts displayed the same I.P.# in the upper right hand corner, I found that there are only four posts represented as posted by Nina Burleigh on the Ed Forum, that the I.P.# of all four posts was the same Sussex, UK I.P.# that John Simkin had posted with at least 100 times, and that no other member's post was tagged with that I.P.# except Simkin's and all four posts "authored" by Burleigh.

John Simkin's I.P.#, except in the case of all of Burlegih's posts, routinely displays only on the first post, the bio post of each new member. After Simkin posts the bio post at the end of his new acciunt creation procedure, in every other instance I checked, he turned the account over to each new member and all of their subsequent posts were tagged with I.P.#'s that were always different than Simkin's and also were from the locations the member claimed to be in, if they disclosed that. The only other instance of two members posts tagged (displaying) the same I.P.# involved the posting activity of Lee Israel and her two "friends."

Also, when the search tool is used to obtain a list of all posts tagged with a given I.P.#, a list is generated displaying all posts ever posted from the inputted I.P.#. It is easy for any Ed Forum mod or admin to check and verify what I stumbled upon and then confirmed.

Until John Simkin ceased all pretenses of decency I reacted to this misrepresentation with great concern because if he was up to a trick like that in the case of three posts displaying Burleigh's authorship, what other unfortunate turns would he take? Recently he has answered my concerns.

Draw your own conclusions, Jim. Even if Nina Burleigh accorded Simkin specific permission to weave what she sent to him in email messages into what he then pasted into posts created and posted by Simkin after he logged into Burleigh's newly created Ed Forum member account, he bypassed the only definitive safeguard that would prove to any mod or admin who found it that was done with Burleigh's knowledge and permission. What does it say about her if Nina Burleigh cooperated with Simkin to represent that she posted three posts on his Forum while in fact, she had not. Considering what happened in a way most favorable to Simkin, he also missed the opportunity at the time he posted to add a disclaimer explanation at the bottom of each of the Burleigh posts; "This was posted by John Simkin with the knowledge and permission of Nina Burleigh." [/font] We are left to speculate and consider the lengths John has gone to during these past eight years to "protect Peter Janney" by any and all means he could think of and then act upon. The people who are closest to him on the forum are almost to a man as involved in John's misrepresentations as John is. Gary appealed to all of them by advising them that supporting John after his "Future of the Forum" actions was not in John's best interests.

This is the strangest experience ever to capture my attention. Janney seems to have an ability to convince almost anyone of anything and then to say that it is so in the face of all actual evidence.

Janney is the nephew of the guy he led the trade of 20 percent of General Dynamics comon stock in exchange for a private company with no owned assets that generated revenue by selling back to Cook County the sand, gravel, and coal that it extracted and delivered from land owned by Cook County.

Janney's uncle Frank then proceeded to join Time Inc.'s board in 1960 and hang around at least until Luce's death in 1967. Janney's mother "served" on the WHO.edu corporation's board with Bush buddy Devine.

Don Devereux ignores what could be the rich investigation of Janney's Uncle Frank Pace, Henry Crown, and Henry Luce and the JFK Assassination. Instead he works to help Janney nail a quiet Berkeley Operations Research PhD. Devereux knows more than I do aboutHenry Crown, Sam Nanini, Pat Hoy, Gus Alex, and Accardo.

http://dondevereux.com/2013/02/25/the-bolles-murder-a-case-of-curious-coincidences/.....By the late 1960s, Bolles already must have been wondering about the relationship between Motorola and Chicago mob-connected folks. As noted in Bolles’s October 1970 series on organized crime, when Motorola needed a place to build a new plant in Tucson, the Illinois-based electronics firm turned to Sam Nanini for the land purchase. On whose behalf had Nanini been holding the property sold to Motorola? Before becoming a prominent Tucson fixture after his move to Arizona, Bolles observed, former Chicagoan Nanini had a history of Windy City ties to such notorious gangsters as Mike Carrozzo, Joey Glimco, and Louis Campagna. For his background on Nanini, Bolles drew from Ovid Demaris’s authoritative book on Chicago and the Mafia, Captive City.

After 15 years under the Byfields, smoozing nightly with Irv Kupcinet, Patrick H. Hoy was hired by Henry Crown after the merger of MSC and General Dynamics. Crown named him the first non-family president of MSC and executive VP of General Dynamics. After spending most evenings in Byfield's Pump Room restaurant from the mid 1940's into the 1960's, Hoy and Irv and Essie Kupcinet knew every VIP in the U.S. , including all the members of the Chicago Syndicate, and Kupcinet's partners the Colitz's were friends of Jack Ruby since boyhood and owned the Clover Bar next door to Byfield and Hoy's Hotel Sherman offices. There was Colitz testimony in the WC record to the effect that Ruby had stopped in at the Clover Bar the last time he had been in Chicago.

http://books.google....nG=Search Books

Lions in the street: the inside story of the great Wall Street law firms‎ - Page 14Paul Hoffman - Law - 1973 - 244 pagesGilpatric himself had an office in General Dynamics' headquarters in RockefellerCenter and had advised the company on its acquisition of Material Services ...

[url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&source=hp&q= contention that rentals paid by MSC were so &aql=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp]http://books.google....o...sa=N&tab=wp[/url]Captive city‎ - Page 216Ovid Demaris - Social Science - 1969 - 366 pages....................Crown was to grow up to become the greatest exponent of sand and gravel in the world— virtually transforming sanitary district sand piles and quarries into gold mines."Henry Crown," said Booth, "views the Sanitary District as a small subsidiary ofMaterial Service Corporation." From the mid 1920s to the early 1940s, Crown purchased nearly 1000 acres of district land through nominees — Benjamin Z. Gould, general counsel of MSC, and one Clarence R. Serb — without competitive bidding, paying an average of $64 an acre. These vast holdings, plus another 420 acres held under long-term leases negotiated mostly in the 1950s, literally formed the foundation of MSC. These properties had mountains of earth and rock deposits on their surface (spoil banks rich in limestone used for crushed rock and cement) which were the residue from channel widening and deepening at the turn of the century. They saved MSC the expense of quarrying for years. In his complaint, Booth pointed out that "none of the leases approved by the Trustees authorized Material Service Corporation to engage in excavation of sand, gravel, or other materials from below the surface of the ground. On information and belief Material Service Corporation has engaged in extensive excavating operations and removed enormous quantities of sand, gravel, limestone and other materials from below the surface of the ground which it has sold. . .[obtaining] large revenues . . . and has unjustly and unlawfully enriched itself thereby.

. . . All such acts and operations . . . are illegal and beyond the power granted . . . under the laws of the State of Illinois. ...From time to time Material Service Corporation has also been granted sub-leasesand short-term leases also at inadequate rentals as well as buy the right to take other spoil banks at nominal prices.

.......If my suspicions here are correct, Tom Clark aided Crown in 1963, as he and Albert Jenner had in 1956 and 1959, both hiring Crown's son. Earl Warren, who was already "on board" via his friendship with Crown partners Hilton and Kirkeby, was given cover by Clark to appoint Crown's lawyer to the WC investigative team. As he did with the suit against Crown's company, filed by Harry Booth, he got it dismissed, and moved to Federal Court where it was dismissed again on grounds that no Illinois citizen had standing to sue MSC and General Dynamics for appropriating public land and assets via influencing Sanitary District officials.

During the WC's investigation, Albert Jenner spent his question time with George Demohrenschildt by compilmenting him on his tan and good looks, and by bringing in Oswald's second grade teacher for questioning. Jenner never got around to questioning Oswald's N.O. landlord on the witness stand, or Tippet's best friend. Hw found that both Oswald and Ruby acted alone. He failed to investigate Henry Crown, although he did question security chief, Max Clark, who worked for Henry Crown at General Dynamics. Hoover and Tom Clark must have forgotten that James Ragen told them that Crown was on top in the Syndicate. Demaris wrote that Harry Booth filed this in Cook County Circuit Court in October, 1963. Jenner was probably drafting an answer to Booth's 66 page brief when he got the call from Earl Warren to come to Washington to meet with J. Lee Rankin in December.Quotehttp://www.loislaw.c...64 F. Supp. 465BOOTH v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, (1967)

Ros Gilpatric spent the summers of his youth on Mount Desert Island, ME with Nelson and David Rockefeller.

Gilpatric's brother's obit.:

Chadbourne Gilpatric, Foundation Aide, 74 - New York Timeswww.nytimes.com/1989/.../chadbourne-gilpatric-foundation-aide-74.ht...‎Feb 3, 1989 - Chadbourne Gilpatric, a retired official of the Rockefeller Foundation, died Wednesday after undergoing surgery at the Eastern Maine Medical .

Janney's uncle Frank Pace "bought" MSC from Crown with the help of Ros Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law "Tex" Moore.Pace announced in Ft. Worth that the TFX contract award had been decided before Sen. McClellan later determined the aircraft had even been fully spec'd out for bidding to begin. After handing over General Dynamics to Henry Crown and his Chicago "associates," Pace retired to the bosom of the Rockefeller fortune. Janney, Simkin, Devereux, and Pepper focus on a Berekely PhD. who appears suspiciously private to them and who must have been trying to frame Ray Crump. All four men, along with HP Albarelli are staking their reputations on CIA assassination of Mary Meyer because "Jack was changing too fast, under Mary's prescient, drug laced guidance."

Tom Scully wrote:Dan, it finally dawns on me that I have not properly described why what I have been saying is simply and completely obvious to any Ed Forum moderator who would check into it. Every moderator and admin sees this view of every post. In the upper right hand corner the IP number (I crossed it out in Cinque's old post to maintain his privacy) is visible to moderators. So any mod or admin can simply click on one of the links I posted in the quote box above and verify that the posts of Simkin and Burleigh visible on the same linked pages display the same, Sussex, UK I.P. number, the I.P. Simkin was using for at least one hundred of his posts around that 19 August, 2005 time frame. This has nothing to do with quoting and reposting. The other I.P. tool permits a moderator to quickly obtain a list of all posts posted from any inputted I.P. number, from the oldest post originating from the inputted I.P. # to the most recent.

Ok, yes Tom, that makes things quite a bit clearer. I would still tend to think though, that this is best explained by Simkin corresponding with Burleigh via email, then posting her responses in the profile he created for her. Not just because I'm trying to be fair (which I sometimes do), but because I'd think Simkin would have enough self-interest to not risk a lawsuit and/or "damage to his reputation" by wholesale fraud. The other thing being that this was early on at the Forum and he may well have (soon) realized there were problems in doing things that way -- some of the very issues you've raised, and at the very least the element of misrepresentation (to readers) involved. (And so, thereafter, he made it clear to "his" Important Author guests that they would have to mingle with the peasants, however distasteful that must be.)

When I discussed this problem privately with the moderating "team" the only reaction was that I should not have posted I.P. #'s publicly. I pointed out that "members" who post fraudulantly to misinform with the intent to deceive should not [be] a privacy preservation priority and that in any instance where the author of a post posted on the forum is in doubt (because the I.P. # fraud tools are effective in ascertaining when this fraud has occurred), the information displayed in such posts is worth less and the member who has posted while misrepresenting authorship cannot be trusted with posting privilege.

To me, this would've been a more serious issue than the probable misjudgment of "early Simkin" in how to present "Answers From Authors." But then they may very well not have understood your arguments, especially if they thought "posting I.P. addresses" meant you were posting the addresses of Important People.

Seriously though, this "mentality of a Censor" kinda thing has always driven me up a wall: they can understand & object to some "rule" being broken, while (apparently) being completely oblivious to larger issues of fraud, organized campaigns of disinformation & party political agendas, etc. In this case, there's probably also the element of paternalism involved: Mr. Simkin is an authority figure, that I am able to recognize; Mr. Simkin good; what Mr. Simkin says, goes.....

Dan, there is much more of your work on the Ed Forum available where this came from, if it helps to know it.....

It does help to know it Tom; thank you very much for that. I have somewhat mixed feelings about it, since it would tend to diminish my status as an outlaw and martyr (which I was hoping to milk for a while); but at least now I know that I may be able to recover some things I posted and not feel like I may as well have been pissing in a pond for 7 years of my life.

James DiEugenio wrote:BTW, has everyone noticed how many authors Simkin has attracted so far now that he got rid of me and Tom?

How about Albarelli for one and his crappy book.

Albarelli arrived holding a big wooden spoon, stirred the shit, insulted every single member whilst claiming he'd been insulted, then left when Simkin got his scissors out. Pardon my French but Albarelli can go screw a donkey.

I must admit though I'm really "enjoying" the posts of Robert Prudhomme. His water pistol fights with David Von Pein have become incredibly "enlightening." Robert will soon been in the Thomas Graves category. Tommy's posts were always "great." I especially liked it when he used to play his famous guessing games. "What is in the pocket of the man in the beige jacket? I think it might be a walkie talkie, or a small dog, or a lighter, or a very small rifle." "What is the beige jacketed man saying to the man who looks Cuban, or Mexican, or Venezulan, or Chilean, or Peruvian, or Spanish? I think he's saying either to meet him at the Texas Theater or he's saying I like your bushy eyebrows."

Seriously though, if I never read another Thomas Graves post I will be a much happier person and I'm beginning to feel the same way about Prudhomme.

There is very little education to be found on the Education Forum these days.

I had an opportunity tonight to attempt to lift the blinders from the eyes of Ed Forum moderator Kathy Becket.:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,9075.msg266325.html#msg266325......Not off topic at all, Kathy. You have a penchant for hanging in there a tad too long, when it comes to those others dismiss as miscreants....

My intitial reply to Kathy Becket's admission that she had long been fooled by multi forum poster, Mike Williams:

.......If I were you and I kept silent about some of the things you've voiced no objection to and actually came out and defended, I would feel a need to shower hourly. You are who you support, Kathy.

(It is not just a river in Egypt.)

UPDATE: Duncan, owner of the jfkassassinationforum.com deleted my two posts linked above from a thread he started and wanted to keeo strictly on topic. Fortunately I saved much of my exchange with Kathy Becket, though.:

I knew, when I saw your name, that you would find a way to weasel your way in here and make it have to do with you.

Any Education forum moderator with scruples can verify that the three posts on the Education Forum represented to be posted by Nina Burleigh are stamped with the IP # John Simkin was posting from at that time

.

Funny. Everytime I read a Simkin post, his IP is noted as private. I have no idea what it is. How did you manage to see it?

If I were you and I kept silent about some of the things you've voiced no objection to and actually came out and defended, I would feel a need to shower hourly. You are who you support, Kathy.

Actually, we just moved, and I have a huge room in the basement, complete with a jacuzzi. So I shower occasionally, but I make sure I get 2 baths a day in that gigantic tub. I even got some bubble bath, and plan on purchasing a few toy boats. I can watch TV from the bathtub too. :thumbs1xx:As for me being the one who supports me(?),Tom, I believe you are the one who is always tootin' your own horn.

Not off topic at all, Kathy. You have a penchant for hanging in there a tad too long, when it comes to those others dismiss as miscreants.

Kathy, I accidentally noticed that the IP# in Nina Burleigh's bio post was identical to the IP# in the other three posts John Simkin presented as posted personally by Ms. Burleigh. There is no disclaimer posted by Mr. Simkin explaining this. Mr. Simkin posts the first (bio) post of every new Ed Forum member after he creates their account. In no other instance has he posted all of a member's subsequent posts on HIS forum as he has in the example of Nina Burleigh's posts #'s 2, 3, and 4.

Kathy, you know that John Simkin posted Nina Burleigh's bio post, and I know that as an Ed Forum moderator, the IP# of this posts is visible top you. You have the ability to verify that Ms. Burleigh's bio post displays an IP# identical to the other three posts presented as posted by Ms. Burleigh, and linked below. You have access to the Ed Forum IP# search tool, "show results as posts". You can then observe that all posts tagged with that IP# were posted by Mr. Simkin's Ed Forum account and that none were posted by anyone else. It is reasonable, based on the IP# search tool results to deduce that Mr. Simkin logged into Nina Burleigh's Ed Forum account from his computer in Sussex, UK and posted all three of "her" posts. I am not claiming that the text Mr. Simkin posted and presented as Ms. Burleigh's did not originate from Ms. Burleigh, I am writing that Mr. Simkin circumvented the IP signature feature on HIS forum that would have confirmed who posted what text from whose Ed Forum account. At the least, performing a misrepresentation such as this one and then accusing the member you posted as of doing the bidding of the CIA is a cause for concern, as is making false accusations and summarily banning members opposing your opinions on the identical matter that Mr. Simkin has been in vocal opposition to Ms. Burleigh about.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4640&p=36372

Nina Burleigh Posted 09 August 2005 - 10:39 AMNina Burleigh was born in San Francisco in 1960. After graduating from the University of Chicago she became a journalist. Over the years she has written about politics, law, crime and women’s issues. Her articles have been published in Time, Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Magazine. In 1998 she published A Very Private Woman, a book about the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer. This was followed by The Stranger and the Statesman (2003), about the mysterious life of 18th Century scientist James Smithson.

If you use the IP# search tool at your disposal as a moderator of the Education Forum, you will be able to confirm that ALL POSTS linked to that particular IP # were posted ONLY by John Simkin.

No one else thinks this speaks to an agenda and a fraud, considering what the intent is in the post above, and this record? :

'Tom Scully', on 10 Sept 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Considering I have found that David Yarnell posted in 2005 under I.P. numbers also logged to posts by Lee Israel and by Jonathan Wendland, it seems appropriate to reevaluate / discount everything posted by these three.

The following posts all originated from the same I.P. # : .......

Kathy, as you posted, you were slow to come to a realization that Mike was insincere. Consider that Gary, Charles, Martin Hay, and Daniel Wayne Dunn did not even need to see that John Simkin was capable of posting all three of Nina Burleigh's posts he presented as posted by Ms. Burleigh in HIS forum to easily grasp that Mr. Simkin is an ethics challenged individual.

......Nina Burleigh is a member of this forum and discussed the book with us when it was first published. It was because of this discussion that the person who knew Mary Pinchot Meyer and Cord Meyer made contact with me. He had been a major source of information for Burleigh's book. However, she refused to use any of the information that showed the CIA was involved in her death. He came to the conclusion this was a "limited hangout"

One of the important aspects of this book is that it will show that Nina Burleigh's book on the subject, "A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer" (1998) was a CIA limited hangout.

The only thing propping up Mr. Simkin are the blinders steadfastly worn by Evan, Pat, Barb, yourself, and anyone else who remains at their post.

Speaking of horn tootin', I am an apprentice, compared to these journeymen.:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RHETJR89AG4KJ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1626361274&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag= In the new PaperBack Edition, Peter Janney again distorts and misrepresents the facts., October 3, 2013By T. Scully

In the new final chapter, Janney writes,...Although we were unable to duplicate Scully's Google search, the three of us closely examined the citations he had brought to light.In several of the citations, William L. Mithcell listed references to his education--Cornell University (B.M.E. degree in 1962), Harvard University (M.S. Degree in 1963), and the University of California, Berkeley (Ph.D. in Mathematics 1970). We subsequently corroborated all three degrees with the registrars of these institutions.

Gaining access to the Cornell University Alumni Directory through a friend, I learned that Mitchell had listed his current address and phone number in northern California. Then, through another friend, I acquired access to the Harvard Alumni Directory, where I discovered that William Mitchell's middle name was "Lockwood," thereby giving us another needed piece of the puzzle to further penetrate his true identity..."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20505John Simkin Posted 05 October 2013 ........I then sent out details of the article to over 100 friends and media contacts. I finished the email with the words: “I therefore ask you to pass on this email to friends. It would also help if you “liked” my page on Lord Rothermere and Ralph Miliband and share the article with your friends. Or you could retweet my tweet on the subject.” I was therefore asking my friends to do what the multi-national media organisations do to promote their articles. ....

In my initial, now deleted post to Kathy a few hours ago, (was at the second link in this post), in addtion to pointing out to her that she was doing Simkin no favor by strongly supporting him, and after asking here to examine the IP# posting activity of the misrepresented Nina Burleigh posts, and after pointing out to her that Gary, Charles, Martin Hay, and Daniel did not require the information that Mr. Simkin misrepresented posting activity of Ms. Burleigh on his forum and then accused her twice of writing a book of "limited CIA hangout" to recognize that Mr. Simkin was ethically impaired, I asked here about her continued silence in response to these questions posted on the Ed Forum.:

When a forum member is banned for whatever reason, is it necessary to summarily delete all of his or her old posts?

Isn't that kind of Orwellian?Dave

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20411Missing postsStarted by Dawn Meredith, Sep 03 2013For several years Jim DiEugenio posted on these pages. Then his membership was dropped. But what happened to all his posts?

They are only visible if someone commented on a post and contained JIm's in the comment. I have asked him if he removed them and he said no.Who did and why? There was a lot of excellent work over many years in these posts.

Tom Scully wrote:Gary, Charles, Martin Hay, and Daniel did not require the information that Mr. Simkin misrepresented posting activity of Ms. Burleigh on his forum and then accused her twice of writing a book of "limited CIA hangout" to recognize that Mr. Simkin was ethically impaired,

Tom,

you may be right that all those people believe what you say they believe, but unless you know it as a fact, you probably shouldn't put the words in their mouths. The charge is a serious one. Do those people believe as you say they do, or is it just that you think they should believe that?

_________________Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use isI offer him embarrassment and my usual excusesWhile looking down the corridorOut to where the van is waitingI'm looking for the Great Leap Forward Billy Bragg-----------------------------Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. Lachie Hulme -----------------------------The Cold War ran on bullshit. Me

I was directing my statement at Kathy who I assumed knew I was speaking of specific and related bones of contention, ones she has taken strong, public, and opposite words and actions in response to than I have observed of the people I named. I meant Robert, btw, not Charles. I attempted to describe the public pronouncements and related actions of Mr. Simkin that were challenged and objected to by the people I named. I briefly described them unprovacatively as criticism of ethics because I am aware I am making serious accusations. I tried to convey that I came away with from reading posts in the "Future of the Forum" Ed Forum thread impressed with the strong skepticism of those who I named, in response to the several explanations Mr. Simkin had posted to justify accusations he was making for processless sanctions he had meted out to critics of his beliefs and opinions. I am posting from a phone and I will amend my post ASAP from a computer to try to avoid giving an impression to general readers that I presume to know what the opinion of anyone other than mine is related to the reputation and ethical standards of John Simkin. I should have confined myself to stating that it seemed to me that the people I named had posted in strong objection even without awareness of the question of provenance of the Burleigh posts, now added to the mix, taking into account Mr. Simkin's emphasis of his motive to restore a receptive, respected environment for authors at his forum.